25 Indian Political Thought

Indian Political Thought (Dharmashastra Tradition)293

(Dharmashastra Tradition)
In the history of political thought, it is important to note that the tradition of Indian political thought precedes the tradition
of the western political thought. In India, well organised monarchies and republics did not exist prior to the existence of various
forms of Greek city states; Indian sages and intellectuals had systematically dwelled on the purposes of the state and the art of
the government even before the appearance of Socrates and Plato.
Again, the tradition of Indian political thought is on its way to become an integral part of the global heritage of political thought.
The two broad streams of ancient Indian political thought are:
• Modern Indian political thought
• Ancient Indian political thought.
As per George Tanham, India lacked political and strategic culture. He held that India is not a place to look for political wisdom
but only a place to look for spiritual wisdom. Indians have made huge progress towards the spiritual aspects of life but have
ignored the material well-being.
• Politics is seen as worldly whereas Indians are concerned about the other world (world of God). Hence in western world, the
status of Indian political thought remains contested.
• However, as per K Subramaniam, it is not correct to say that Indians lacked political thinking. He argues that the West cannot
understand Indian strategic culture as it does not fit into their limited horizon of strategic cultures. It reflects their ethnocentric
attitude with an attempt to maintain their hegemony.
• According to Professor VR Mehta, the failure of the West to recognise Indian thought can be because of a lack of understanding
of the Indian way of life by people in the west.
• The big difference in outlook of East and West emerges from the west making dichotomy between man and society, nature and
culture, politics and ethics. On the other hand, Indians have always looked at things in continuity. It has never separated man
and society, nature and culture, Dharma and Danda.
In order to understand the Indian perspective on politics and statecraft; it is necessary to understand the Indian way of life
or the unique way of Indian thinking. According to Professor Morris Jones, the neglect of Indian political thought will result in
impoverishment of the West.
Max Mueller, who is regarded as one of the greatest Indologist have acknowledged that nowhere in the world has the human
mind dealt with various questions of life in such a depth as in the case of India. India has been a source of enlightenment for the
world.

SALIENT FEATURES OF INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT

• Enormous continuity in ancient and modern Indian thought.
• There is a continuity in the concept of dharma and Danda.
• Indian political thought is communitarian
• Indian tradition has been pluralistic
• Indian approach is always cosmopolitan
• Indians have not defined the nation in a narrow territorial sense. According to Sant Tukaram, the entire world is a family.
• Indian tradition is non-critical. It takes a regressive view of history rather than progressive.

BROAD STREAMS OF INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT

• Liberal stream : largely inspired by the principles of British liberalism like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Dadabhai Naoroji
• Idealist stream : ardent champions of India nationalism like sri Aurobindo
• Humanist stream : based on the principle of Western humanism like MN Roy

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

294 Political Theory

• Socialist stream: chiefly concerned with the interest of the working class. Like Acharya Narendra dev, JL Nehru, Jayprakash
Narayan.
• Feminist stream : they were concerned with the plight of women, like Pandita Ramabai

ANCIENT INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT

Ancient Indian political thought is popularly known a s Hindu Political Thought and it is spread over several centuries. The
major tenets of the Hindu political thought originate from the ancient concept of riti or cosmic order. It is different from the man-
made law which can be created and altered at will. On the other hand, cosmic order is the all-pervading order behind all natural
phenomena. Like the western concept of Natural law Riti can be discovered by a human being through his own spiritual experience.
Its realisation involves the identification with the sublime.
Therefore, according to Bhikhu Parekh, ancient Indian tradition can be categorised into Hindu and Buddhist traditions

DHARMA SHASTRA AND DANDA SHASTRA TRADITION

Dharma Shastras are considered books on law whereas Danda Shastras are considered books on politics and tradition. The
difference between them lies in the degree of dharma and danda. Indian political thought doesn’t consider danda and dharma
in silos, rather in continuum.
The Dharma Shastra writers concentrated on exploring the dharma of the individuals and social groups including the government.
In contrast to the approach of the Dharma Shastra, the authors of Dand shastra are interested in the organization and mechanisation
of danda.
Dharma Shastras are legalistic and religious in orientation. whereas dandashatras/arthshashtra are concentrated on institutions
and politics. In Dharmashastra the discussion on Dharma is core and danda is peripheral, whereas in dand shastra the discussion
on danda is core and dharma is peripheral.
MANU
Manu is regarded as the chief exponent of Dhramashastra tradition which regulates all aspects of social life including polity.
In Fact, the whole edifice of traditional Hindu society was erected on the code of law enunciated by Manu himself. Initially it was
based on sound logic but later it was reduced to a dogma. Manu’s dictates have been reinterpreted by various social reformers
so as to make them compatible with the needs of social progress and to achieve the goal of social justice.
According to Indian traditions, Manu is Manasputra of Brahma (Originator of the universe). Manu is the first law giver. Manu
has told what is dharma of different varnas. There was a reason behind the creation of Manu. The reason being the presence of
anarchy. Hence Brahma created Manu and tried to establish Dharma and end anarchy.

Dharma
There is no appropriate word available in any of the European languages which can be treated as an exact translation of the Indian word
dharma. It should be not be confused with religion. According to Rigveda, “Prithvim Dharma Dhritam”, which means Dharma is that which
holds life on this earth.
If Dharma is not followed it will lead to arajakta (anarchy) and thus it will lead to Parajay (catastrophe), which will bring end to life on earth.

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

Indian Political Thought (Dharmashastra Tradition)295

Dharma is discussed in Dharma shastra. Most well-known Dharma Shastra is Manusmriti. Manusmriti is a highly contested and
controversial text. One of the greatest admirers of Manusmriti is Dr S Radhakrishnan. On the other side one of the most major
critique Of Manusmriti was Dr. Ambedkar. In his book “Annihilation of caste’’ he had suggested putting dynamites on vedas and
Manusmriti. Feminist have also criticized manusmritis as it accrues subordinate status to women. Manusmriti had advocated not
giving freedom to women.

Vedic texts
Vedic texts are categorised into shrutis and smritis. Shruti represents Vedas. Vedas contain revealed knowledge. The knowledge is revealed
by Brahma to Rishis. Smriti is based on revealed knowledge found on Shrutis (Part of vedic literature). Shrutis contain Riti. It denotes cosmic
law that is the law of the universe/nature. Dharma is a law to govern human society. It is based on reality. One of the most well known smriti
is Manusmriti.

Manusmriti
Manusmriti mainly relates to ideas associated with Dharma/state and the duties associated with kings. It talks about the role
of the king and that it is his most foremost duty to maintain dharma on earth.
DHARMA
A central principle of Indian Philosophy is the concept of ‘dharma’. The rules and regulation of Dharma is contained in the ‘Dharmashastras’.
Dharma means the right duty of a person. It means virtuous path. It means the “higher truth”. It is the moral law or natural law. It is the
natural order of things. It is the cosmic order. It is the social order. It is ethical behaviour. Dharma means the duty and responsibility of the
individual and the society. Dharma means service to the community also. Dharma means self expression also. People must live according to
Dharma. It must govern the life of the individual and the society. It means that each human being has a purpose in life. Each person has a duty
in life. He must perform his duties. This is the only method of purification of his soul. By this way he will get ‘nirvana’ or ‘moksha’.
Ideals related to Dharma.
Purusharthas: The four purushartha shows that Hindus took life in a comprehensive sense. They have neither it nor the material nor sensual
pleasures. Hence it represents a balanced way of life.
• Concept of Ashrams – Ashram denote different stages of life with specific goals for each stage.
Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanprastha, Sanyasa.
• Concept of Varnas – Hindu society was divided into four Varnas namely Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Each one is to follow
its Dharma. If Varna Dharma is not followed then it can lead to Arajakta or pralay. Hence the most important duty of the King is to ensure
that all Varnas follow their Dharma. It is for this reason, King has the role of Danda.
• Concept of Sanskar– There are 16 essential rituals to be followed by Hindus. These rituals are called Sanskaras. Starting with Garbhadhan
ending with Anteyshthi.

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

296 Political Theory

IDEAS ON STATES
Manusmriti describes the quasi-contractual theory of state. It is quasi-contractual because the State is a contract between
man and God. Chapter 7 of Manusmriti mentions the theory of state. Initially there was no state and there was arajakta. In this
situation Matsya Nyaya was prevalent i.e- might is right – big fish-eating small fish. Hence people requested Brahma and Brahma
created Manu. Manu is the first king and the law giver. Now it is the duty of people to obey the laws.

IDEAS ON KINGSHIP
In the West Kings have a divine personality and they exercise divine rights. In India kings only had divine personalities but not
divine rights. Divine right symbolises absolute authority. Kings did not have absolute authority. They were under law. Kings were
to follow Raj Dharma – Dharma as found in Dharma shastras that is as told by Brahmins.
According to Manu, upon the non-performance of Dharma, King is bound to go to jail. King is supposed to be from Kshatriya
Varna. It was a hereditary institution. Hence the duties of the king was to follow Kshatriya Dharma.
• Duties of the king
• King should have knowledge of Vedas.
• King should respect Brahmins.
• King should get up early in the morning.
• King should not sleep in the daytime.
• Kings should not indulge too much in hunting, gambling, drinking, dancing.
• King should not indulge too much with women.
• King should worship Brahmins daily.
• King should construct public utilities.
• King should take care of orphans, destitutes.
• King should help his people to achieve yogkshem that is helping people achieve the four purusharthas.
• Rakshan & Palan are the responsibilities of the King.
• King should administer punishment according to Shastras.
• In Manusmriti there is no concept of equality before law. Lower the Varna, higher the punishment for the same offence.
Manusmriti also deals with principles of taxation. Principle of taxation was directly proportional to fertility of land.
• 1/6th of produce is Kings share from the most fertile land
• 1/8th of produce is from less fertile land
• 1/10th from least fertile land
Manusmriti on status of women
Manu views the family as the most significant of all social groups. According to him, marriage is the most sacred thing. Manu
doesn’t allow any kind of divorce or separation between husband and wife and views marriage as indissoluble during one’s lifetime.
Inferior status to women: Women were kept under the supervision of men. She was men’s responsibility and her actions were
to be always guided. However, he admired women and praised their role in the family or the household. He entrusted the wife with
the responsibility of managing financial and material resources of the house. He equates the housewife with the Goddess of fortune
because both bestow illumination. He advises that all members in the house shall honour women and keep them happy. He writes,
“where women are respected, there is the God’s delight; and where they are not, there all works and efforts are reduced to nil”.
Criticism:
• He was a supporter of the divinity of the king and superiority of the priestly class. It is not consistent with democratic principles.
• His concept of the kingdom is nothing more than the emergence of tribal organisation into some faint beginning of a territorial
state.
• He had laid undue emphasis on the scheme of four-fold varnas, which subsequently led to many other social complications
and conflicts.

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

Indian Political Thought (Dharmashastra Tradition)297

• Some of the ideas of Manu, especially his views on authority, administration and local government are distinct, irrelevant and
one-sided.
In Spite of many criticisms, Manu is considered as father of Indian Polity for his immense contributions to Indian society, polity
and religion.

DRAWBACKS AND LIMITATIONS OF INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT

• The sources are mainly religious in nature and hence it is difficult to isolate the sources from it.
• The sense of nationhood was missing
• A fulsome adoration of the ancient Hindu traditions gives a pat sense of false values.
Still, we can say that it would be inappropriate to say that Indians lacked political wisdom. There are various Indian texts like
Manusmriti, Arthashastra, Ramayana, Mahabharat, Shukra-niti and other political texts which contain huge political wisdom. Besides
Hindu texts, the Buddhist and Jain texts also discussed the principles of statecraft, the ideals of kingship, objectives of governance.

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

• Explain the sources of ancient Indian political thought-2020.
• Examine the significance of Dharma in ancient Indian political thought

Scholars Concepts and Sayings

George Tanham
K Subramaniam
Professor VR Mehta
Morris Jones
Max Mueller
George Tanham

Sources
• INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT OP GAUBA
• INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT VR MEHTA

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

 26 Kautilya
298 Political Theory

INTRODUCTION
Kautilya is considered as the pioneer of economics and political science. In the Western world, he has been referred to as the
Indian Machiavelli, although his works predate Machiavelli’s by about 1800 years. Kautilya was a teacher in Takshila, an ancient
centre of learning, and was responsible for the creation of the Mauryan Empire, the first of its kind on the Indian subcontinent.
His works were lost near the end of the Gupta dynasty and not rediscovered until the early twentieth century. Two classics
that are said to be Kautilya’s creations are the Arthashastra and the Neetishastra. The Arthashastra is also known as Chanakya Niti.
It discusses monetary and fiscal policies, welfare, international relations and war strategies in detail. Neetishastra is a treatise on
the ideal way of life, and shows Kautilya’s in depth study of the Indian way of life.
In the Arthashastra, Kautilya specifically described the duties of the council of state and of the council of ministers. According
to him, a state should completely dominate its economy and taxation and pricing policies. Kautilya developed a labour theory of
value for determining ‘just’ wage for workers as he understood the concepts of demand and supply and their combined influence
on price. He even wrote explicitly on foreign trade, interest and money.
Kautilya Arthashastra is not a theoretical treatise on political science. It is not directly concern itself with the question of the
origin of the state. Kautilya’s Arthashastra essentially a book on the art of administration gave only passing reference to the
origin of the state.
According to Kautilya the state originated when people got weary of the logic of the fish (Matsanayana) according to which
bigger fish swallow the smaller ones. The state originated to fulfill the desire of the people to have a peaceful society. King took
upon themselves the responsibility of maintaining the safety and security of their subjects.

WORK: ARTHASHASTRA–TRADITION OF DANDA SHASTRA

• State craft is discussed
• Also contains dharma
• There is continuity between Manu and Kautilya in terms of laws.
MAIN IDEAS OF ARTHASHASTRA
• Kautilya defines statecraft as Arthashastra. Arth means material well being.
According to him most important objective of king is to ensure material well
being of his people. In his words, “Material well being is supreme, attainment of all goals like
Dharma, Kama, and Moksha depends on material well being.”
• In ancient time, land was the main source of securing material well being. So Arthashastra’s main idea was how to acquire the
land. It is natural for a state to go for acquiring land. First land to be acquire the land of the neighbour. Hence neighbour was
also the natural enemy.
• Relation between two states was relation of war. Arthashastra contains art of war like Sun Tzu, the Chinese strategist. Hence
main idea of Arthashastra was war, strategic planning, Balance of power and geopolitics.
• Arthashastra can be considered as the first text of geopolitics. Geopolitics is science of capturing land. According to concept of
geopolitics, state is an organism. Like organism, state has to grow. If state doesn’t grow/expand, state will perish/decay.
• Arthashastra challenges the western view that Indians lacked strategic culture. George Tanham rejected that Indians had any
strategic wisdom. But Kautilya proved him wrong.
• It is unfortunate that policy makers in India overlooked the wisdom found in Arthashastra. However, in the beginning of
21stcentury, Hindu Rightist Party after coming to power changed in the approach of South Block. We are rediscovering Indian
wisdom.

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

Kautilya299

KAUTILYA’S LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE:

Two millennia before Adam Smith enunciated the labour theory of value, Kautilya in Arthashastra held that a ‘just’ wage to
be paid to workers should be based on amount of time spent on the job, amount of the output created, and the skills necessary
to perform the required tasks.
Kautilya explicitly recognizes three distinct components for determining market value of labour:
1. Level of skill required (the human capital element),
2. Labour hours worked, and
3. Unit of output produced (the labour productivity element).

PROMINENT IDEAS OF ARTHASHASTRA:

• State of relation between two countries
• Mandal Siddhant
• 4 Upaya
• Saptang Theory
• ShadgunyaNiti

STATE RELATION
Kautilya was a rightist. He believed that in a jungle of inter-state politics where strength of lion prevails. There is a relation of
war between two states. The interstate relations were the struggle for power.
According to him interstate relation or politics is a state of war. States are either on war or in preparation of war. In such a way
state has only option to rely on power. He belongs to “school of offensive realism”. He believes in power realisation rather than
defence. For them offence is the best defence.

MANDAL SIDDHANT
Raj Dharma:
It is connected to Kshatriya Dharma i.e. war. After coronation, king has to start expedition. In ancient India, there was tradition
of different yagnas. Example: Ashwamedha yagna, Rajsuya yagna (after victory), etc. According to Kautilya, king should have desire
to become “chakravarti Samrat”. He addresses the king as vijigishu, one who aspires for victory.
Mandal Siddhant is based on geopolitics. According to geopolitics, state is an organism. Like organism, state has to grow. If state
doesn’t grow/expand, state will perish/decay. The states are expansionist by nature. Land is main source of material well being.

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

300 Political Theory

It is the compulsion on Kings to expand their state. The neighbour becomes natural enemy. Both try to expand their territory. He
defined situation as follows:
In forward direction:
1. King
2. Ari
3. Mitra
4. Ari mitra
5. Mitra mitra
6. Ari mitramitra
Backward direction
1. Parsnigraha
2. Akranda
3. Parsnigrahasara
4. Akrandsara
• When Vijigishu prepares for expansion, he has to take care of
Parsnigraha.
• Friend at back as Akranda.
• In this way he gives sequence of kings.
• Other kings: Udasena, neutral e.g. Turkmenistan, Switzerland.
Neutral status is in context of war. If other countries accept the
status of any country as neutral then that country has to give equal access to its territories to both parties in war e.g. Nepal
aspires for neutral status. Nepal’s demand is against India’s national interest. If Nepal becomes neutral, in case of India-china
war, both will have access to its territory. At present only India can use its territory during war under agreement of 1950.
• According to Kautilya, king should try to bring neutrals in favour.

Madhyama (buffer state)

It is the smaller state between two major powers. The purpose is to avoid the powers coming into direct confrontation. For
ex. Nepal is ideal buffer zone between India and china. According to Kautilya, king should try to bring buffer state to their control
as Nepal by 1950 agreement but India lost strategic advantage when china occupied the Tibet.
Max Weber “Kautilya is more Machiavelli than Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s prince is harmless when compared to Kautilya’s
vijigishu.
TYPES OF WAR:
1. Parakramyuddha – open war
2. Kootyuddha – gorilla war
3. Prakash yuddha
4. Tushnimyuddha – proxy war

SHADGUNYANITI (SIX FOLD POLICY)

1. Sandhi – If enemy is strong than go for it. e.g. Shimla agreement with Pakistan.
2. Vigraha – Break sandhi when you become strong.
3. Asana – Stationing of force near enemy’s territory.
4. Yana – Exercises near enemy’s territory.
5. Samsarya–Join hands to those who have same objectives e.g. QUAD.
6. Dwaidibahva – Friendship with one, enemity with other. Don’t go for war at two fronts at same time instead make friendship
with one enemy for the time being.

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

Kautilya301

FOUR UPAYAS (4 FOLD POLICY)

• Sama (Peace)
• Dama or Dana (Economy)
• Danda( Force )
• Bhed
Saman or ‘conciliation’ can be achieved in five ways, praising merits, mention of relationships, pointing out of mutual benefits,
showing advantages and placing oneself at the other’s disposal.
Dana consists of conferring benefits of money.
Bheda or ‘dissension’ is creating apprehension and reprimanding.
Danda or ‘force’ is killing, tormenting and seizure of property.
KAUTILYA MENTIONED THREE TYPES OF VICTORIES:
• Dharm Vijay – By rightful means.
• Lobh Vijay – Economic inducements to enemy’s Army.
• Asur Vijay – By unfair means

SAPTANG SIDDHANTH (SAPTA PRAKRITI)

It explains the seven limbs of the state, which also means seven elements of sovereignty. It is an example of organic theory of
state. Kautilya takes systematic view of state.
• State is a system containing seven elements.
King:
King is the Nabhi of State (Centre). King plays the most important role. If King is strong and other elements of sovereignty
are weak, the strong and the smart king can convert the elements of weakness into elements of strength. If other elements are
strong but king is not strong and lacks courage, then also these elements will not be able to play the role of determinant of power.
This shows importance of leadership. Though king is central, yet Kautilya writes that a single wheel cannot run the chariot. It
means King alone cannot run the state, it will require help of others. Kautilya emphasises that king should not be arrogant and
give adequate recognition to other elements. State is a system of interdependence. He also reminds the king that kingship is a
duty - Dharma. In Kautilya’s words, “In the happiness of the subjects, lies the happiness of the King.”
When the king is powerful, he is also like a servant of the state. It is the duty of the king to maintain the state. The king is like
a constitutional slave of the state. If required, he is supposed to give up even his family for the sake of the state. This is the ideal
of Ramayana. That means, the king cannot always follow his personal likes and dislikes.
AMATYAS:
They are mostly Brahmins. The most important among them is the ambassador, who is the representative of king/state. King
should choose them very carefully. He should be a trusted person and well-versed in shastras. He should be handsome. He suggests
that king should have at least three Amatyas. If 2 conspire against King, then one will stay with the King.
King should have constant vigil on Amatyas.
• Amatyas can challenge the power of king. He even suggests, king should keep on testing integrity of Amatyas from time to
time.
• He gave different suggestions, e.g – “King can send his spy to Amatya, who can tell that Queen is in love with Amatya and is
waiting for him at Palace and in case Amatya plans to kill the king, queen will provide all help”.
DURG (FORT)
Mauryan Empire is known for different type of forts. Kautilya mentions about forts on hill, water & deserts. Forts are symbol
of defensive and offensive capabilities of state. Hence King should be constructing forts. For every state it is necessary to have
safety and protection system. Therefore, Kautilya considered the forts as one of the main components of a state. He considers
forts as powerful as people and land. Because internal and external securities are important.
Because without external security, no state can be stable. The security of the treasury and army depends of fortification.
Kautilya advocates that there should be forts at all the four corners of the state so the security from all the sides can be ensured.

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

302 Political Theory

Kautilya has classified forts in four types.

1. Audak fort, where there should be trenches always filled with water.
2. Parvat Fort which should surrounded with high mountains and rocks.
3. Danvan fort which should surrounded with deserts and there should be no oasis nearby. It is almost impossible to reach such
forts.
4. Van Fort, which are built in dense forest where it is very difficult to reach there.
Forts continued to play an important role in the stability and consolidation of states, Many functions like secret war, the
readiness of the army and fighting the enemy are to be carried out from the fort.
JANPAD:
Janpad defined in the Arthashastra implies both territory and population of because without the territory and the population
a state cannot exist. It is a place where common men live, operate, conduct business & various activities. It is very important as
it provides economic resources.
The territory should contain fertile lands, mines, timber, pasture grounds, forests and water ways etc. The Janpad should be
prosperous and its lands fertile. The people should include men with good character and loyalty, intelligent, wise masters and slaves.
King has to ensure that his people are happy. Even in case of Janpad, Kautilya suggests to use the spies to remain in touch with
public mood. Kautilya has given a detailed account of spies. He mentions different type of spies to be used both for external and
internal purposes. Some of the types are – Kapatika Chatra (posed as students), Bhikshuks (beggars), women, Udasthita (Ascetics),
Grihapaitika (Retired soldiers living a civilian life),Unsuccessful Trader/Businessman – A merchant (Vaidehaka), Religious Leaders.
Also, Kautilya advised the king to induce people from other countries to migrate and settle in new village on old sites or new
sites or cause people from thickly populated areas of his own kingdom to settle down in such village with a view to securing that
each village should consist of not less than one hundred and not more than five hundred families and contain a sufficient number
of sudra cultivators. The king was to protect agriculture and industry was also the responsibility of the king.
BALA (MILITARY STRENGTH)
Without a sound defense system there cannot be the existence of state. And for the defense of the state there should be
a strong army. Therefore, it is very necessary that he constitute a strong army and use it for the internal and external threats.
Army is used to control anti-social elements in the society and disloyal people.
Army is also useful in defending the state from outside attacks. According to Kautilya, the state army should be given the best
training and they should be provided with the best weapons. Soldiers should be fully satisfies especially when they are fighting
in the field. For this purpose the king should try his best effort to meet soldier’s needs. Army played and important role in the
state. According to him, Army should be comprised of Ksatriyas.
He believes in hereditary basis of recruitment. However, if need arises, other varnas can also be incorporated. Even with respect
to King, Kautilya is not particular about varna. He mentions that King can be of any varna but preferably kshatriya.
KOSHA (TREASURY)
Kosha or Treasury is an extremely important resource. A strong and well managed treasury is the heart of any organization.
Kosha or Treasury is necessary for the protection and maintenance of the state in general and army in particular. Kautilya says
that all undertakings depend upon Kosha. Income of the state was derived from taxes like export taxes, sales tax, village tax, etc.
In his Arthashastra Kautilya has given utmost importance to public finance.
Because without treasury even a family cannot run. The foremost duty of a king to keep the treasury full and prosperous.
The king should collect taxes and fill the treasury. According to Kautilya, the treasury should be collected and maintained honestly
and religiously. The treasure should be such full that it may be helpful in the time of difficulty for a long time. It should be sufficient
to the extent that King is able to fulfil his routine obligations; he is able to meet any sort of emergency (war or natural calamity).
MITRA (ALLY):
Friends only have symbolic importance. As there is no permanent friend or permanent enemy, it is difficult to identify who is
real friend or who is pretending. Kautilya’s concept of Mitra (ally) is based more an ethical considerations. It should be one with
whom there is no possibility of rupture and one who is ready to come to help when occasion demands it.
The ideal ally is one who has the qualities like, a friend of the family for a long time, constant, amenable to control, powerful
in his support, sharing a common interest, able to mobilise quickly and not a man who double crosses his friends. They are symbol
of strength of the king. Everyone wants to be friend of the strong. Hence if a country starts losing friends to enemy, it is a serious
concern. Example Maldives, Sri Lanka and Nepal going to China. In politics, perception of strength is crucial.

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

Kautilya303

To conclude Saptanga theory as propounded by Kautilya is his monumental contribution to the science of politics and
administration. This theory contains all the elements that can contribute to good governace. Kautilya says, it all depends on the
king how he deals with the elements of the state. He can make even the poor and miserable elements of his sovereignty happy
and prosperous but a wicked king will surely destroy the most prosperous element of the state. In Kautilya’s Saptanga Theory
the king heads the list of seven constituent elements of the state. These seven pillars are built into firm and strong sections can
shoulder any responsibility and face any challenge.
Relevance of Saptang theory and Mandal Siddhant :
Before starting expedition, Vijigishu has to calculate the strength of enemies as well as of his own. The seven elements are
the determinants of power. King has to make assessment of 12 * 7 = 84 elements sovereignty. 12 Kings multiply 7 elements of
state to take calculated rate.
Kautilya’s statecraft on internal administration:
Even in internal administration, king has to take care of seven elements of sovereignty. Even for internal administration, Kautilya
advises the use of spies to check rebellion. Kautilya has given special emphasis on problem of corruption in administration.
Kautilya’s view on corruption
Corruption is in evitable part of administration. Accordingto him, “If honey is on the tongue – it is not possible not to taste it.”
Public officials handle so many resources that they themselves do not realise when they have committed the act of corruption
i.e. embezzlement of public funds. In his words, “Fish swimming in water, will itself not realise when it has drink the water”. Even
when corruption is in evitable, yet it is not desirable.
Why?
Because it makes state weak internally and externally.
How?
Corruption weakens the capacity of the state to achieve the material welfare of its people. This weakens the moral of people.
If moral is down, it is easy for enemy to win.
What is the problem in handling corruption?
The biggest problem is detection of corruption. According to him it is easy to detect the movement of birds flying in the sky
but it is not easy to detect when the officials have committed corruption.
Kautilya mentioned different ways by which officials commit corruption. In his words, “there are 40 ways of embezzlement.”
Example
• Officials can play with weights and measurements.
• Officials can take money out of the treasury but enter it later in the account book.
• They may sell resources at higher price but enter lower price in the accounts.
• They may take money from public fund for personal use without entering.
Though Kautilya recognises the difficulty, it does not mean that steps should not be taken for minimising corruption. He gives
following suggestions:
Suggestions against corruption
1. Right sizing the bureaucracy.
2. Transfer officials before they understand the loopholes in office.
3. Give security and rewards to the whistleblowers.
4. He suggests punishing the entire chain and not just official.
5. Punish the person who gave bribe, person who receives bribe, who keeps the money.
6. He suggest for public humiliation of corrupt official.
7. Reward the honest officers.
8. Compensate the person who has suffered because of official’s corruption.
According to Kautilya, there is a concept called Matsyanyaya. It means that, in the absence of a ruler, the strong person will
destroy the weak; but under the protection of the ruler, the weak resist the strong. In Arthashastra, there is a concept called
rájatva also. It means Sovereignty of a country.

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

304 Political Theory

COMPARISON BETWEEN KAUTILYA AND MACHIAVELLI

Nehru in his book discovery of India has called Kautilya as “Indian Machiavelli”.
The customary comparison between Kautilya and Machiavelli has resulted in the portrayal of Kautilya as the Machiavelli of
India by thinkers like G. B. Bottazi and Hillebrant. The portrayal, however, seems to be misplaced as Kautilya preceded Machiavelli,
and thus he ought to be treated as the pioneer in the science of statecraft.
Not only this, a closer look at the two political thinkers impartially projects the difference in their philosophical and conceptual
frameworks. However, notwithstanding the differences in the historical and cultural background of ancient India and 15th century
Italy, the common points of focus for both the thinkers are preservation, acquisition and expansion of the state.
The differences in the political outlook of Kautilya and Machiavelli are essentially rooted in the long Indian tradition of culture
and politics on which Kautilya drew and which, while conceding autonomy to different branches of knowledge, recommends an
integrated view of life. Because of this tradition, Kautilya does not divorce political issues from the ethical ones.
As such, this prevents Kautilya’s political philosophy from degenerating into a ruthless device for acquiring power for its own
sake. In spite of its emphasis on the need to consolidate political power, it does not treat this power as an end but as a means. On
the other hand, Machiavelli views politics as a moral activity in pursuit of political power that is not aware of its social responsibility.
In this sense, the differences between the two thinkers become fundamental.
The suggestions of Machiavelli depict shrewd insight. He believed that it was not necessary for the government to be human or
ethical. What was necessary was that the government must maintain itself in power and provide the security of life and property
to its citizens, thus confirming the government to play a particular role that of a police state, and thus reducing the origin or the
base of the executive only to a limited purpose of proving its usefulness by remaining in power.
Machiavelli viewed an identity between the interest of the Prince and the subjects and he vested full authority in the prince
to act as he likes in the best interest of the state. He failed to understand that the prince as a human being may try to promote
selfish interests at the cost of public interest and may use all types of autocratic methods for this purpose.
Contrarily, the distinctiveness of Kautilya’s Arthasastra lies in its primary concern for practical utility in administration. Kautilya
hardly speculated on the origin of the state. All the same, the high-handedness of the religious institutions in public life hardly
made any provision for the interest of the state.
The Arthasastra refers to numerous previous teachers and claims to be a systematic compendium of the ancient teachings.
Kautilya makes no pretence for the construction of any original system of political philosophy. He is not interested in presenting
the architectonic of the rationally perfect and ideal polity. He only claims to have made an attempt to eliminate the discrepancies
existing in the various schools. As a result, the Arthasastra appears to be a tremendously comprehensive work.
It succinctly deals with the major problems of political theory, law and administration as well as the conduct of foreign policy
and warfare and, on occasions, becomes so specific as to advise the exact fines to be levied on various kinds of criminal acts.
The work is characterized by its absolutely realistic philosophy and practical approach to the science of politics. Like Machiavelli,
Kautilya has produced a theory of government in which the end justifies the means.
Upinder Kaur in her book “Political Violence in Ancient India” suggests that in terms of time, Machiavelli should be called as
Italian Kautilya.
The two thinkers differ in time and space. Kautilya, – ancient India, Machiavelli – end of medieval Italy. Still there are remarkable
similarities between their thoughts.
• Both are realist scholars.
• Both had similar concerns. Both were concerned about the then prevailing situation in motherland. The motherland of both
was under threat of foreign invasion.
• Both wanted consolidation of motherland and well-being of people.
• Both gave similar advices to King/Prince.
• Kautilya like Machiavelli, allows king to use all sort of means.
• If Machiavelli makes separation between politics andethics. Kautilya prescribes Sam, Dam, Danda, Bhed.
• Both support imperialist foreign policy. However, Kautilya has given more detailed views.
• Both talk about management of power, handling of corruption.
There are some differences also.

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com

Kautilya305

• For Machiavelli, Prince is above religion. For Kautilya, King remains under dharma.
• Machiavelli gave generic advices, whereas Kautilya gave precise advices.
• Any person looking for statecraft will find Arthashastra as better guide than Machiavelli’s
“Prince”.
• For Machiavelli, Prince should be ruling with iron hand but Kautilya’s king is generous and kind
towards people.
• Max Weber, in his book “Politics as a vocation” has mentioned that Kautilya was more Machiavellian than Machiavelli i.e.
more realist than Machiavelli.
• According to him, if we look at Kautilya’s King, Machiavelli’s Prince will look harmless. Thus, there are lot of similarities in
aspirations, circumstances, ideas and prescriptions. Kautilya differs from Machiavelli in the sense that Kautilya got his king but
unfortunately Machiavelli never got his Prince

ESTIMATE OF KAUTILYA
Kautilya was one who even defeated Alexander the Great. His statecraft was perfect and fool proof. It was based on philosophy
as well as practical wisdom. When compared with the contemporary political thinkers elsewhere in the world, Kautilya was way
ahead of all of them in almost all aspects of state craft. He was realistic, systematic and practical. He was able to convert idealism
into practical realms with a touch of realism. For Kautilya, it was not just philosophy to create a utopian state.
For him it was the question of running a great empire, that made him all the more different from contemporary political
thinkers or those who were to follow him for centuries. Kautilya was also able to blend the ancient religious traditions also into
the art of government while keeping the subtle difference from affecting the secular environment of state craft. On any account,
it can be stated that a meaningful appreciation of Kautilya as a political thinker will definitely place him at the zenith of the art
and science of political thinking.

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

• What do you understand by the notion of Statecraft ? Discuss the theory of statecraft as given by Kautilya.-2017
• Draw parallels between Arthashastra tradition and the ‘Realist’ tradition represented by Machiavelli.-2012
• Compare and contrast Dharma shastra and Arthashastra with reference to State power.- 2010
• Critically examine the Sapta Prakriti of the state as envisaged by Kautilya.-2007
• Comment on: Of those (officers) the ways of embezzlement are forty (Kautilya)

Sayings of Kautilya Theory

“Material well-being alone is supreme. For, spiritual good and sensual pleasures depends upon material well-being.”
“The ways of embezzlement are forty.”
“In the happiness of his subjects, lies the happiness of the king; in the welfare of his subjects, lies his welfare.”
“When people are impoverished, they become greedy, when they are greedy, they become disaffected, when
disaffected, they voluntarily go to the side of the enemy and destroy their own master.”
“One wheel alone does not turn and keep the Cart in motion.”
“A King should not hesitate to break any friendship or alliances that are later found to be disadvantageous.”

For More Study Material, visit: studyiq.com